The Potential for Online Mapping to Measure Nonprofit Success

I've often discussed online mapping in respect to human rights and how such technologies can lead to exposing crimes against humanity. Recently, I stumbled upon another use for online mapping which shifts the discussion to how nonprofits can utilize this form of social media as a form of metrics.

The Partnership for Medical Quality Donations (PQMD) launched a new online mapping tool in December which visualizes the medical product donations being made by humanitarian organizations, pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers around the world. The press release (found here) notes that this new map provides unprecedented access to information about these donations and is meant to provide a better understanding for both global health professionals and the general public about how these donations are being used.

Considering nonprofits are often faced with answering to board members, stakeholders, investors and donors about the progress of their organization, perhaps this technology could develop into a useful tool. While numbers are always a way to measure success, it isn't always the most reliable method. The Nonprofit Technology Network (NTEN) was onto this way before I was and wrote about it in this post from September 2007.

Numbers can be helpful but they are dry. They don't demonstrate in detail how the mission of an organization is being reached. NTEN explains this well:

Do all these numbers really tell us if we are meeting our missions? Take this number. Tell me what you think this number says about NTEN:

• 7158: September site visits to date at http://nten.org.

It does say a number of things. It says that we are less popular than Amazon.com and Facebook. It also says that we are not even beginning to scratch the surface of the number of nonprofits that could know about us.

But here's what it does not say:

1. How engaged those 7158 people are with the NTEN site, or the organization;
2. If those 7158 people think NTEN is worthwhile; and most importantly:
3. Whether or not we are achieving our mission

So with numbers, one can get a general picture of the organization. But what people, especially donors, want to hear is how their contributions are being used, which ultimately means their interested in stories about the people or causes the organization is aiming to help.

Maybe this is just the journalist in me, but I believe that everyone enjoys a good story. Especially if you make someone feel that they are part of the story. If I know my donation to a charity focusing on saving lives in Darfur helped buy medicine for a sick child in a refugee camp, then I'm going to feel like my donation was worthwhile. If I'm happy with how the organization is allocating its resources, I'm likely to keep donating.

Online mapping has the ability to do make people feel part of the story. Maps such as Google Earth's Crisis in Darfur map and Ushahidi, help visualize human rights violations but they also help to give a more in-depth story about what is happening. If this could be applied to nonprofits and how they're operating, it would give everyone involved from board members to donors a more interactive and detailed look at what is being accomplished.

Now, I'm not completely naive. I understand that this takes money and the know-how from people who are well-versed in this technology and the problem is, most nonprofits don't have the resources to do this.

The PQMD mapping tool was funded by a grant from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and developed in partnership with Loma Linda University Health Geoinformatics Program and International Aid, Inc.

But perhaps I'm an idealist and hope that as this technology advances and becomes more popular, nonprofits can get in on the fun too. It really is all about the story (again, the journalist in me) and there are so many good ones out there to tell. NTEN agrees with me:

At the end of the day, nonprofits are not about the number of widgets we move off the shelves. We are more than metrics. We are stories. We are the tales of the lives we touch and the communities we shape. And though metrics are a necessary and good part of our work, they are not the story.

Returning From Exile

Lately, I've been watching a lot of television.

Having lost my job, I've spent numerous hours trying to find a new one with various reruns of sitcoms providing background noise. (This partly explains my prolonged absence from writing but now I'm trying to get back into the swing of things.)

Syndicated sitcoms aside, there's one show that I've caught that I can't quite make my mind up about: MTV's Exiled, which premiered this past August. The premise is taking the spoiled, narcissistic teenagers from My Super Sweet Sixteen and placing them in remote places in third world countries in order to teach them a lesson or two about earning a dollar. Each former Sweet Sixteener stays with a host family for one week where they are guided by someone their age.

For the most part, I must admit that I'm a fan of reality television shows (although not all of them) and to some extent I enjoy the senseless drama as a form of entertainment. Which is why I laughed a little to myself about the thought of these young money monsters heading to places such as Kenya, Morocco and Thailand to finally see that life isn't all Gucci bags and trust funds.

But the one thing I keep in mind is that this is still reality television and one week in exile won't teach these teens much more than life sucks for everyone else but them as they return home to the cushy wallets of mommy and daddy.

I'm not trying to be overly cynical because I actually do find a few positive notes about this show. If anything, it gives viewers the chance to see how hard people in other cultures truly work for the simplest of things such as water, never mind just earning money. In the first episode, Amanda travels to Kenya where she stays with Josephine from the Musai tribe and must travel four hours to get to the drinking well. Quite the time-difference from just turning a faucet.

It opens viewers' eyes to different cultures and different traditions. Of course, in a limited scope, as a half-hour television series can only do so much, but perhaps every bit does count, especially since the show reaches such a young demographic.

While the subjects of each episode are the people we all love to hate, the show is still humbling for those of us who haven't grown up with a silver-spoon in our mouth. The majority of us are not living in mansions with butlers and maids and a never-ending amount of money to spend but we live quite comfortable lifestyles. So, while we may feel inclined to laugh as Amanda shrieks over the bugs flying around her or at her complete disgust at building a hut with cow dung, we may come to realize that we might not handle these situations with any more grace than she did. (Given my irrational fear of bugs, something tells me I would've been less than graceful when dealing with the insect population in Kenya!)

Watching these host families take these Americans in with open arms, there is almost a sense of exploitation as they are used as teaching tools for the privileged. With only one week spent with the host family, each teen is whisked back to life in the States while the respectful and humble host family carries on with life as usual. It begs the question of whether there should be any type of compensation for the role these families have.

Shortly after the show's debut, Newsweek examined the response the show has received noting viewers' concerns over stereotyping and exploitation.

Whether or not these experiences really have changed the perspectives of each teen that particpated on the show is debateable but in the end, it is just reality television. Unfortunately we're just careless about who we drag into our craze for "reality."

Give Globally This Season

It's hard to believe that it's already September, which means that the time is fast approaching for "giving season." The holidays always contribute to a rise in donations to charities and non-profits between November and December. With that said, there's a great Web site that makes donating a whole lot easier.

I myself have been wanting to contribute to different causes but often find it overwhelming to narrow down what social issues I want to help with. Then I came across GlobalGiving, an online marketplace that connects people to causes they are interested in while also providing progress updates so you can monitor your impact.

For me, that's the biggest selling point. As a recent college grad in an entry level position, I'm not making the big bucks, but I still want to play my part in giving back somehow. GlobalGiving breaks each donation for each charity down to emphasize that every little bit counts. For instance, the site tells you that giving $15 can help feed one elderly person for one month in Guatemala; $180 will feed one elderly person for a year and $200 will buy a maize crusher to make tortillas. I can afford $15 and know that such a small contribution can actually have an impact on someone's life.

With so many different charities out there, it's hard to know where to start. GlobalGiving aggregates all different types with helpful information about what they're trying to achieve. You can search for causes by country, by topic, by newest projects and by which projects are closest to reaching their donation goals.

The other major plus is that GlobalGiving works with legitimate organizations that must go through a due diligence review to ensure that your money is going where it should be going. The site, which is also a registered 501(c)3 organization, takes a 10 percent fee to cover operating costs while 85 to 90 percent of your donation goes straight to the charity you chose.

Not to mention, your donation is tax-deductible as well.

So as the holiday season is right around the corner, hopefully this will help make each individual experience that much easier and maybe even spur people to contribute year round.

Positive Mobility

I know I've neglected posting throughout most of this month as I've been incredibly busy. I'm hoping things will pick up again here as the summer dies down.

In the meantime, I came across an interesting article by Jack Ewing that ran in BusinessWeek discussing recent data supporting the benefits of mobile phones in poor countries. Considering the projects discussed here throughout the months, especially those focusing on SMS technology, it's nice to see a report with actual evidence that this technology has had a positive effect throughout the world.

The data, issued by the GSM Association, reported the impact mobile phones have had on small businesses, the status of women and on farmers and fisherman among others.

You can read the BusinessWeek article here.

Ewing also provided an in-depth look at mobile phone technology in Africa last year. Although he provides the link in his article about the GSM Association report, I'll link to it here because it's really worth looking at.

Here's the report:

GSMA Development Fund Top 20

Feeling the Vibe

While perusing through the latest non-profit news at work, I noticed a lot of buzz around a new social media platform known as SocialVibe. The idea behind this site is to allow users to select a cause, choose a sponsor and then post your badge to different networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace or your personal blog. The more active you are on SocialVibe and on social networking sites in general, the more points you can earn, which translates into monetary donations for your cause. Money is collected from the brand sponsors and everything from uploading pictures to your SocialVibe profile to inviting friends to join can help you earn points.


The concept builds on other sites such as Free Rice or the Hunger Site where the simple act of clicking a mouse can earn money or food to be donated to those in need. Just like SocialVibe these sites also depend on sponsors for their money, making it a win-win situation for all sides. Charities get more donations and further their impact, companies get their name attached to a good cause and people can become involved in an easy and inter-connected manner.

SocialVibe recently reached a milestone by raising $100,000 in donations for charity within six months of its public launch this past February. I'd say that's not too shabby and another testament to how non-profits can be strengthened through the use of social media.

My cause for now is Peace & Human Rights, as you'll be able to see from the widget posted on my sidebar. Perhaps I'll change it at some point to gain exposure for another cause, which leads me to one complaint about SocialVibe. You can only have one cause at a time. I'd like to earn points/money for a couple of different causes. This wasn't addressed in the site's FAQ but you can have up to two sponsors.

I guess I can't complain too much since, in the end, I'm trying to do my part.

The New Yorker: Way Over Americans' Heads

I know I'm a bit late on covering the topic of the New Yorker's controversial cartoon cover of Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, but given my journalism background, I felt the need to comment.

I first heard of the controversy on the morning news and as the image of the picture in question appeared on my television, I couldn't help but put my head in my hands and groan.

Not because I was offended. Not because I really think Obama is a Muslim terrorist and his wife is an aggressive militant. But because I know that there are Americans out there that do have these misconceptions about African Americans and Muslims. Unfortunately, not all of us are able to make that distinction between satire and reality.

Jon Friedman from MarketWatch was exactly on point when he wrote in his Media Web blog:

The magazine is sticking its finger in the eye of every bigot who hates the Obamas because they're African-Americans, every racist who seeks to polarize the electorate and every ignoramus who mistrusts the senator from Illinois without examining his record and background.

The New Yorker was indeed satirizing the ignorance of Americans who are quick to make generalizations and stereotypes without examining the underlying issues. But, as I suspected, there are many out there who will look at this magazine cover and say, "Look, Obama really is a Muslim terrorist!" It didn't take long for me to find videos on YouTube supporting this but I refuse to draw attention to specific ones because regardless of my political views, there is no need for such bigotry, hatred and stereotypes based on religion and skin color. If you so desire to seek such commentary, it'll be easy enough to come across.

Now the issue at hand is the New Yorker's role in publishing such a controversial cartoon. Journalism provides commentary on society, and a liberal publication such as the New Yorker is known to do that through its cartoons. But, given the sensitive nature of the cartoon and the inability for some to make the connection that it is satirical, should the New Yorker have expressed more caution? Where is the line of responsibility drawn?

I can't really say I have any solid answers for that and I'm pretty sure no one really does. The magazine cover has the potential to reinforce these negative stereotypes but as journalism, it is a great piece of social commentary. It's not the New Yorker's fault that some people can't get past their own biases and Obama unfortunately has to go on damage control over issues that are irrelevant to his presidency. In addition, Muslims have to fight off the stereotypes they've been battling since 9/11.

Then again, this controversy in itself proves the New Yorker's point in the first place.

Bashir's Indictment Brings Mixed Views

Following up on the indictment of Sudan's president Bashir, a more in-depth look into reactions around the world is necessary and it looks as though the majority are leaning against the ICC's decision.

The Economist published a great piece that captured the teeter-tottering question of whether this will actually help Sudan or indeed hurt it even more:

"Will things get bloodier if the indictment goes ahead? It is not clear either way. Last year the court indicted the minister for humanitarian affairs in the Sudanese government, together with a janjaweed leader. There was certainly no reduction in the violence then, but nor did it get worse. Nor is it clear how the UN Security Council will react. Justice must give way to peace, pragmatists cry. But there can be no lasting peace without justice, idealists reply."

Reactions from bloggers in Sudan, the rest of Africa and other regions offer a sobering view on the genocide charges with fear looming about what will become of the already unstable nation. Global Voices Online compiled this extensive look into the blog world. I'm not even going to try and summarize because they provided such an in-depth collection of the overall opinion floating around that it's best if you take a look for yourself.

But I will draw attention to some who have come to the defense of the indictment to provide a more balanced debate. Support of the decision has surfaced in Kenya with this article reporting that Kenyans believe Bashir should appear to the ICC to state his role in the genocide. An editorial that ran in Kenya's Daily Nation called the move "the single most important development in the long struggle to end the mass slaughter in the Darfur region," because it will send an important message to leaders across the world--including the U.S.:

"American forces in Iraq have been accused of activities verging on war crimes. There will be some who think President Bush should also be in the dock."

Other supporters have included human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Refugees International who issued this statement on Reuters, citing the decision as "correct and necessary." HRW issued a press release also voicing support.

The general argument on the human rights front is that this indictment will send a forceful message along with becoming a catalyst to end the atrocities that are occurring.

I'm teeter-tottering on this myself.

This is the first indictment on the Hague's behalf and the concept of ownership can be extremely powerful--as discussed in my posts about satellite imagery making a compelling argument for human rights abuses. Being held responsible for acts of genocide is just another facet to that ownership.

But it's necessary to take into consideration the dire consequences this could have, which bloggers throughout Africa, including the Sudanese, are rightfully expressing concern for. Not only may this result in backlash from the Janjaweed against civilians but also the UN peacekeepers and humanitarian aides.

It's too early to determine whether the indictment will have any positive effect on the crisis in Darfur but all situations need to be carefully weighed as the ICC moves forward.